The central legal point established in the judgment is that a promise to marry leading to sexual intercourse, if proven to be a 'misconception of fact,' can lead to a conviction under Section 376 IPC.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in Crl.A.No.388 of 2020: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to call for the records relating to the proceedings in S.C.No.27/2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram, to set aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 18.09.2020 and set the appellant at liberty.

In Crl.A.No.680 of 2022: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to set aside the acquittal rendered in judgment dated 18.09.2020 in S.C.No.27/2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram.)

Common Judgment:

1. These criminal Appeals are filed against Judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram. made in S.C.No.27/2016, dated 18.09.2020.

2. The appellant in CrlA.No.388/2020 is the accused in S.C.No.27/2016 and he is convicted and sentenced as detailed hereunder:

Conviction

Sentence

Section 417 IPC

Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for six months.

He was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 312 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence the accused filed Crl.A.No.388/2020.

3. The State filed Crl.A. No.680/2022 challenging the order of acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 312 IPC.

4. For the sake of convenience, the appellant in Crl.A.No.388/2020 is referred as accused and the appellant in Crl.A.No.680/2022 as prosecution/ State.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution/state examined 10 witnesses and marked 13 documents.

6. The case of the prosecution as could be discerned from the prosecution witnesses is as follows:

6.1. The victim (P.W.1) is the daughter of Krishnan (P.W.2). P.W.1's mother died when she was a child. Therefore, P.W.2 married the second time. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are residing in Gengavaram Village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District.

6.2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 and the accused were in love with each other and P.W.1 was eking her livelihood by being a cook. The accused was studying in a College in Chennai. His parents were also residing in the same village where P.W.1 is residing. The accused in fact was related to the 2nd wife of P.W.2 (step mother of P.W.1). P.W.1 had pledged her jewels weighing 2 sovereigns of gold for the educational expenses of the accused since she was in love with him. The deposition of P.W.1 is that the accused promised her that he would marry her and had sex with her, on account of which she became pregnant. She aborted the child at the behest of the accused since at that point of time the accused had not completed his studies. Subsequently, she became pregnant again and insisted the accused to marry her. Since the accused refused to marry her, a village panchayat was convened, in which the accused refused to marry P.W.1 but promised to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to her. Therefore P.W.1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) with the All Women Police Station, Thirukovilur on 06.07.2010. She did not abort her child the second time as insisted by the accused and on 18.01.2011, she gave birth to a girl child, by name Pavithra. The accused married another woman on 16.02.2016.

6.3. Tmt.Janaki(not examined), the then Head Constable of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirukovilur, received the complaint (Ex.P1) dated 06.07.2010 from P.W.1 and issued a challan in C.S.R. No.205/2010 and subsequently on 05.10.2010 Tmt. Rajakumari (P.W.8), the then Sub Inspector of Police of the same Police Station, registered FIR (Ex.P8) in Crime No.19/10 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 294(b) IPC. She then took up investigation, went to the scene of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P9) and a rough sketch (Ex.P10) in the presence of Chakrapani (not examined) and El